Families adopt more than 10 kids from overseas
Some New Zealanders have adopted more than 10 children from overseas and one woman with previous convictions smuggled children into the country, government briefings have revealed.
Internal intelligence reports and warnings to Labour and National immigration ministers show concerns about the motives of some parents in adopting children from abroad, but being powerless to act.
A Swedish commission recommended last week that international adoptions be stopped after an investigation found a series of abuses and fraud dating back decades.
In New Zealand, too, the abuses - and the unchecked pathway for adoptees coming from countries which have not ratified the Hague Convention - have been known about for decades. It has included adoptive parents with previous convictions and children being held as house-slaves or sexually assaulted.
Oranga Tamariki and the Family Court here do not need to be consulted - or even notified - before the children are adopted and arrive in New Zealand, which has also prompted fears the lack of oversight could mean other abuses remain undiscovered.
An immigration and customs report from June last year, which analysed threats to the New Zealand border, said fraud involved in "non-genuine adoptions" included falsifying family relationships to gain residence or citizenship.
A briefing to immigration minister Erica Stanford in January said the majority of intercountry adoptions were genuine, but some young people may be adopted out by birth parents who see it as a way for their children to access New Zealand's better "education, services and labour market".
"Several cases of harm to international adoptees, perpetrated by their adoptive families, have been identified in recent years, and there is a risk that the incidents may rise in future.
"While the risk of exploitation and abuse exists in both genuine and non-genuine adoptions alike, the latter presents a much higher risk, both at an individual and systemic level. MBIE intelligence evidence, for example, indicates that children and young adults entering New Zealand as a result of a non-genuine adoption are at higher risk of sexual abuse, labour exploitation and domestic servitude, as well as reports of physical abuse, neglect and preventing school-age adoptees from participating in education."
The number of such adoptions was expected to increase over time, "potentially exponentially as cohorts of previous adoptees come of age" it said, seeming to suggest adopted children could later adopt children themselves from their home country. Adoptees over 18-years-old
The dependent child category residence visa extends to the age of 24 and a "large proportion" of those adopted overseas were over the age of 18 when they were brought to New Zealand, officials said.
A 2021 intelligence report said 65% of dependent child category applicants in 2020/21 from one unnamed (redacted) country were aged from 18 to 25, totalling 224 young adults.
"While the issues cited above can arise for adoptees of any age, adoptions initiated at a relatively older age tend to present higher risk of some types of harm, such as financial exploitation, and are also more likely to raise questions in respect of their genuineness, with associated risks to the integrity of the immigration system.
"While New Zealand law sets age restrictions for domestic adoptions, there is no upper age limit for recognising international adoptions, which creates a situation where adoptees well past the age where standard arguments for genuine adoptions, eg, for the care and protection of a child in the nature of a parent child relationship, may no longer be as applicable, and it is likely that secondary gains, such as securing residence may be the primary motive in many of these cases."
Some adoptions over a certain age would be genuine - "Officials do, however, consider that there are likely to be very few situations where adoption at older ages (especially 20+) would be truly genuine."
Protection from child welfare services did not extend to the older cohort, who were considered vulnerable because they were young adults in an unfamiliar country. The warnings have been known to ministers for many years.
"Once in New Zealand, the children are placed under a high level of control by their adoptive parents," officials told then-immigration minister Iain Lees-Galloway in 2019. "They have their passports taken and movements controlled. They are placed into paid work. However, their wages are controlled by the adoptive parents and they are frequently required to take out substantial loans. The adoptive parents would control these funds, with the children required to pay off the debt." Children smuggled into New Zealand
New Zealand-resident parents have "often" adopted more than 10 children or young adults each from overseas, said the same briefing, indicating some appeared to have been physically, sexually or emotionally abused.
And in an August 2023 report, MBIE Intelligence said Immigration New Zealand (INZ) reported a woman "alleged to have been adopting children and smuggling them into New Zealand".
"INZ has additional concerns around offences against the New Zealand Citizenship Act 1977, convictions of welfare fraud, and family harm incidents with New Zealand Police. INZ has concerns around the welfare of these nationals and has requested additional information to inform decisions on their residency applications."
It found she had "highly likely" provided false and misleading information to INZ to secure residence for her adopted children, had a history of misleading government agencies and was unlikely to be a suitable adoptive parent.
It said she "occasionally resorts" to violent behaviour towards children under her care, and a redacted section referred to a conviction for which she was discharged. "Given [her] history of violent behaviour, she is unlikely to be an appropriate sponsor to adopt children under her care ... there is no information on the frequency of [her] violent behaviour towards her children. It is unknown whether [she] uses physical discipline against her children on a regular basis."
Stanford asked for more policy information after she was alerted to a concerning dependent child category residence visa application in a "no surprises" item in December.
The adopted children would be classed as victims of people trafficking if they were later forced into work or unpaid labour, domestic servitude, coerced marriages or suffered sexual exploitation, she was told. Other adverse outcomes ranged from neglect, emotional abuse, limited access to schooling, and trauma and loss from being removed from their biological families and their home countries.
"While there are concerns about the nature of the adoption, the Immigration Act and relevant immigration instructions do not provide a pathway for legally declining the application."
Where to get help:
Need to Talk? Free call or text 1737 any time to speak to a trained counsellor, for any reason.
Lifeline: 0800 543 354 or text HELP to 4357.
Suicide Crisis Helpline: 0508 828 865 / 0508 TAUTOKO. This is a service for people who may be thinking about suicide, or those who are concerned about family or friends.
Depression Helpline: 0800 111 757 or text 4202.
Samaritans: 0800 726 666.
Youthline: 0800 376 633 or text 234 or email talk@youthline.co.nz.
What's Up: 0800 WHATSUP / 0800 9428 787. This is free counselling for 5 to 19-year-olds.
Asian Family Services: 0800 862 342 or text 832. Languages spoken: Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, Thai, Japanese, Hindi, Gujarati, Marathi, and English.
Rural Support Trust Helpline: 0800 787 254.
Healthline: 0800 611 116.
Rainbow Youth: (09) 376 4155.
OUTLine: 0800 688 5463.
If it is an emergency and you feel like you or someone else is at risk, call 111.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Otago Daily Times
14 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Supermarket pricing errors to be wary of
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ Consumer NZ says supermarkets are still making pricing errors, despite increasing pressure and scrutiny on them. Charges have been filed and a number of supermarkets have pleaded guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act due to inaccurate pricing and misleading specials. But Consumer NZ says misleading specials are still costing shoppers tens of millions of dollars a year and has launched a petition calling for tougher penalties for breaches of the act. It provided examples of a number of ways that people could be caught out by misleading signage in supermarkets. Dodgy multibuy A dodgy multibuy refers to a situation where the individual price and the multibuy price don't add up to a saving. Consumer NZ pointed to this mince special where a tray of meat was $4 or people could buy three for $20. In another case, packaging seemed to be making a confusing difference. Two individual backs of Gingernuts were selling for $5 but the club price for a 500g twin-pack was $5.59. Different pricing Sometimes the price on the shelf tag does not match what you pay at checkout. In this case, supplied by Consumer, the price tag on the shelf said $27, but the customer paid more than $35 at the checkout. Confusing Sometimes it's just hard to work out what the price is. Consumer provided an example of double cream brie was "reduced" to $10.60 for a quick sale - or was it on sale for $9.80? Mismatches Sometimes it seems as though there are multiple labels for the same item. In this case, two signs had two different prices for a single avocado. "One said $1.69. The other said $1.99," Consumer NZ spokesperson Abby Damen said. "The customer was charged $1.99. She returned two days later to ask what could be done about the pricing error. She was offered a refund of the price difference but after pointing out the supermarket's new refund policy, she was refunded $2 and also kept her avocado." Chief executive at Consumer Jon Duffy said anyone who was charged more than the shelf price was entitled by law to a refund of the difference. He said both supermarket chains promised a full refund in that scenario, but consumers sometimes had to know that was what was available. A Foodstuffs spokesperson said with more than 14,000 products in a typical supermarket, and prices changing frequently due to supplier costs, promotions or new product liens, pricing was a complex job. "But for our customers, it's simple. They rightly expect the price on the shelf to match what they pay at the checkout," he said. "We take pricing accuracy as seriously as health and safety, aiming for zero errors. "Across our local, family-owned stores, we manage tens of thousands of price labels and process millions of transactions every week, and we've invested in better systems, daily checks and electronic shelf labels to help get it right. "If we do get it wrong, our policy is that the customer gets a refund and keeps the product. We've also strengthened staff training and store processes to make sure pricing is clear and accurate." Woolworths said it had more 3.5 million transactions in our stores each week "and sometimes errors do occur". "When they do, we try to make things right, through our long-standing and market-leading refund policy. Under that policy, if a customer is charged more than the advertised price for a product, they get a full refund and can keep the product." Duffy said Consumer had received 20 complaints about supermarket pricing since Tuesday. A normal rate would be two a day, he said.
Otago Daily Times
14 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Four common supermarket price errors to look out for
By Susan Edmunds of RNZ Consumer NZ says supermarkets are still making pricing errors, despite increasing pressure and scrutiny on them. Charges have been filed and a number of supermarkets have pleaded guilty to breaching the Fair Trading Act due to inaccurate pricing and misleading specials. But Consumer NZ says misleading specials are still costing shoppers tens of millions of dollars a year and has launched a petition calling for tougher penalties for breaches of the act. It provided examples of a number of ways that people could be caught out by misleading signage in supermarkets. Dodgy multibuy A dodgy multibuy refers to a situation where the individual price and the multibuy price don't add up to a saving. Consumer NZ pointed to this mince special where a tray of meat was $4 or people could buy three for $20. In another case, packaging seemed to be making a confusing difference. Two individual backs of Gingernuts were selling for $5 but the club price for a 500g twin-pack was $5.59. Different pricing Sometimes the price on the shelf tag does not match what you pay at checkout. In this case, supplied by Consumer, the price tag on the shelf said $27, but the customer paid more than $35 at the checkout. Confusing Sometimes it's just hard to work out what the price is. Consumer provided an example of double cream brie was "reduced" to $10.60 for a quick sale - or was it on sale for $9.80? Mismatches Sometimes it seems as though there are multiple labels for the same item. In this case, two signs had two different prices for a single avocado. "One said $1.69. The other said $1.99," Consumer NZ spokesperson Abby Damen said. "The customer was charged $1.99. She returned two days later to ask what could be done about the pricing error. She was offered a refund of the price difference but after pointing out the supermarket's new refund policy, she was refunded $2 and also kept her avocado." Chief executive at Consumer Jon Duffy said anyone who was charged more than the shelf price was entitled by law to a refund of the difference. He said both supermarket chains promised a full refund in that scenario, but consumers sometimes had to know that was what was available. A Foodstuffs spokesperson said with more than 14,000 products in a typical supermarket, and prices changing frequently due to supplier costs, promotions or new product liens, pricing was a complex job. "But for our customers, it's simple. They rightly expect the price on the shelf to match what they pay at the checkout," he said. "We take pricing accuracy as seriously as health and safety, aiming for zero errors. "Across our local, family-owned stores, we manage tens of thousands of price labels and process millions of transactions every week, and we've invested in better systems, daily checks and electronic shelf labels to help get it right. "If we do get it wrong, our policy is that the customer gets a refund and keeps the product. We've also strengthened staff training and store processes to make sure pricing is clear and accurate." Woolworths said it had more 3.5 million transactions in our stores each week "and sometimes errors do occur". "When they do, we try to make things right, through our long-standing and market-leading refund policy. Under that policy, if a customer is charged more than the advertised price for a product, they get a full refund and can keep the product." Duffy said Consumer had received 20 complaints about supermarket pricing since Tuesday. A normal rate would be two a day, he said.
Otago Daily Times
14 minutes ago
- Otago Daily Times
Government to strengthen election 'treating' offences
By Giles Dexter of RNZ The government is moving to strengthen the offence of treating, by creating a buffer zone around polling stations where free food, drink and entertainment is banned. It is a move officials said was "blunt" and "superficial", but would make it more straightforward to identify offending. Treating is the practice of influencing a voter by providing them with free food, drink, or entertainment. It is already an offence, but the law is poorly understood and rarely prosecuted. New Zealand has strict rules in place aimed at preventing voters from being unduly influenced. Election advertising or campaigning is not permitted within 10m of a voting place during advanced voting, and not at all on election day itself. It means voters can head to the ballot without someone else trying to change their mind. But the line between hospitality and influencing is where the confusion comes in, and what the government is hoping to clear up. "There has been some confusion in the past around what is and isn't treating. This will make the rules crystal clear," Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said. Rather than clarify what is or is not treating - or whether it amounts to corrupt intent - the government has instead established a new offence, creating a 100m buffer around polling stations. Within that buffer, free food, drink and entertainment will not be allowed, with a maximum penalty of $10,000. Not the preferred option In a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), Ministry of Justice officials said controlled areas around voting places would make it more straightforward to identify and prosecute offending and was more readily enforceable than the status quo. "The offence will not require that a person intends to corruptly influence an elector. Instead it will only require that they knowingly provided food, drink and entertainment within the controlled area," they said. But it was not their preferred option. "A key drawback of this option is that it is a blunt tool which does not exclusively capture harmful or corrupt behaviour. It draws a superficial line around voting places which may be arbitrary if the influencing behaviour occurs just outside the controlled area." In its inquiry into the 2023 election, the Justice Committee heard concerns from submitters that there may have been breaches of the treating rules at Manurewa Marae. The marae was used as a polling booth at the 2023 election. The marae's then-chief executive, the late Takutai Tarsh Kemp, won the Tāmaki Makaurau seat that year. The Electoral Commission had looked into complaints about the provision of food at the marae, and found it did not meet the test for treating. University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said this had likely influenced the government's decision to strengthen the offence. "Because of concerns about how that particular polling place was operating, they've decided to put in this law that says if you're basically trying to do something nice for voters within 100m of a polling place, that will become an offence," he said. "There's a lot of reasons why you might want to have things like free barbecues, someone on guitar singing, making it more of a community, communal experience. Because that actually might get people to engage with the electoral process more. "So I do wonder if this is another example of where a problem arose, and in response to that a hammer has been taken out to smash the walnut, and we end up overreacting." Manaakitanga concerns Officials recommended clarifying the law to make it easier to understand and more enforceable, as well as a lower intent threshold and penalty. "A lower threshold would make a clear connection between the incentive given and the outcome sought by providing it. This option seeks to make it clearer that genuine intent is required to improperly influence a voter, and this is different to customary practices such as manaakitanga." The controlled areas option was seen as having the potential to have a disproportionate effect on voting places that serve Māori communities. "It is consistent with the practice of manaakitanga to welcome and show appreciation for people with food, drink, and/or entertainment. This option would prohibit and criminalise these cultural practices in the areas around voting places." The ministry's preferred option was to amend the bribery offence to prohibit the use of food, drink or entertainment. "Treating is similar to bribery in the sense that an incentive is provided with the intention of procuring a specific outcome. The key difference is the incentive that is offered - for bribery, it is something of pecuniary value, and for treating it is food, drink, or entertainment. The purpose of combining these into a single offence is to remove the distinction to make it easier to understand and apply." Under this option, officials said it was unlikely manaakitanga would be inappropriately captured.
